Because it is ridiculous when people try to control how others feel and who they love, especially when it really doesn't concern them. What we have now is people that are threatened by the idea of someone, oh my god, loving another person!

I have had my fair share of gayness. While I personally like women, some guys are really hot. I'm not afraid to say that, and it's nice to kissy kiss other good looking mens while out. I have also had relationships

..for the same reasons some people like the opposite sex while others like the same sex? it's part of human nature. repress it and you only get more of it cropping up elsewhere, usually in unhealthy quantities.

I infer from your comment that you believe we should not try to repress brutal violence because it would just crop up elsewhere, in unhealthy quantities. Teh question is: Is that actually what you meant to imply?

Pedophilia is natural too, the difference is not whether something is natural or not but whether there is a victim.
Laws are meant to protect, who is being protected by preventing marriage between any two consenting adults?

Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?

Worse than that who is being better served by having corporations getting involved in debates such as this. If governments have no place in the bedrooms of their nation then corporations certainly have no business being there. Are we really getting to the point where every political debate is going to have corporations butting in, even if you actually agree with the argument they are making? Can't they at least leave us the illusion of having a meaningful public political debate without their interference and just stick to their usual tactic of lobbying/buying the legislative votes which is sadly all that counts in the end?

Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?

Wrong question: Who is being harmed by not allowing two people who love each other get married and enjoy the benefits of being married, just because they have the same genitalia.

The answer to both these questions are immediate and obvious. The people being protected are the married gay people who would now get to enjoy the same benefits married straight people receive. Who would be harmed? Well, some of those benefits come in the form of tax deductions and other types of monetary perks. Married people can usually put their spouse on their insurance. I'm sure there are more examples . ..So who is harmed? The American taxpayer, who has to absorb that deduction, or the other m

As a Christian, I'm against gay marriage from a religious point of view. However as an American, I believe in the freedom of religion and association. You may even choose to not associate with anything. The problem is that marriage is a religious institution sponsored by our federal government. It's a problem because there are all sorts of legal ties to something religious in nature. The implications are huge. It means that the Federal Goverment can dictate the meaning of religious values and not the other way around. I strongly believe the best option is to abstract this union one level apart. That is to say, everyone can have a civil union which grants all the legal benefits without bias. You can still choose to have a religious merriage ceremony after the fact if you wish. Some may want just to be married withough being legally recognized too. Either way should be fair for everyone.

As a Christian you should more correctly say, you are opposed to gay 'Christian' marriages. It is not for you as a Christian to define what relationship contracts should be for other religions or secular marriages.

Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a personal contract between two people, a life time commitment, recognised by religions. It actually has it's roots in war. In removing the whole village concept of shared responsibility for the children. When a King/Chief decide to launch an extended conflict he could hold a soldier's wife and children as hostage to the soldiers obedience. Also obviously some men could be denied access to women and the king could have access to many women, all based around patriarchal violence. As always religion changed and altered this relationship in many ways to suit, not belief but the requirements of the leadership of the day.

The only thing that needs to change is people should be bound by their word, a little bit of mature adult responsibility. Make a life time commitment, then suck it up, that should be the only one you are ever allowed to make.

As a Christian, I'm against gay marriage from a religious point of view. However as an American, I believe in the freedom of religion and association.

As a Christian, you should also know that the Bible is virtually silent on the subject. The only real biblical basis for condemning homosexuality comes from the Old Testament, and even then only puts it at the same level as wearing clothes of mixed fibres, planting in the corners of your field, and picking up sticks upon the Sabbath. If you're willing to condem someone for wearing a cotton/poly blend t-shirt, that's your prerogative, but I don't think you'll have friends for very long.

Conversely, in the New Testament Jesus constantly gives us the example of dining with and caring for those who are outcasts from their society. If anything, the New Testament calls us to reach out to, welcome, and embrace those of other sexual orientations. In the end, the real question is "How can we not welcome them?" It is our duty as Christians to care for those who are on the outside, to welcome into the community, and to celebrate them.

So infertile people don't deserve to get married? People who willingly choose not to have children don't deserve to get married? I'm hearing your religious excuse machine already spinning up from here.

As an atheist, I resent the fact that religious people are trying to appropriate the term "marriage". It has been a term to describe precisely such a contract as you talk about, irrespective of religion, for millenia before Christ.

(for those curious, the etymology of the English goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European "man", which had the same meaning it does in English today; there are no religious connotations there whatsoever).

I'm sure I will open a philosophical can of whoop-ass on myself, but here goes... How did we, humans, end up dominating the earth over other creatures? Some argue our thumbs, our ability to reason, communication, and a whole mess of other things that other animals have. Simple fact of the matter is, a human being will cut up your mother, eat her intestines, while you sit, tied up, being forced to watch, just because THEY CAN. Even your raged-filled chimpanzee doesn't get that personal. And it isn't just us over the animal kingdom, it's humans over humans. When two sides of a war have a technical equality, the one willing to perform the most egregious atrocities will be the one to prevail.

Those sorts of gross situations are more of an exception, rather than the rule. Yes, humans are capable of gross things, but we're also capable of putting a man on the moon. People, for the overwhelming majority, just want to live peacefully and watch their kids grow up safe and be as successful. This means being generally nice and cooperating with other people for the greater good. You'll note that most conquerors who were wildly successful only dealt with the military - they left cities and farms intact.

It's not at all surprising that they're taking that positions. Same sex rights is one of the few areas in which corporate America has been by and large ahead of the curve. I'd wager that if you took a survey at MS and similar corporations that support would be pretty high.

Plus IIRC they've been on that side on the last few times this has popped up for vote.

If a man has a sex-change operation and becomes a woman, can she then marry a man? Or is that still homosexual?And if she can't marry a man because genetically she is still a man...does that mean she can marry a woman?

Equally as ridiculous: the state involved in the love affairs and relationships of anyone.

I think this is it. The state shouldn't recognize gay marriage because it shouldn't recognize straight marriage. It should recognize civil unions gay or straight and then let whatever religion you are decide to call it marriage.

That is exactly what they do, however instead of calling it a civil union they call it marriage. It's incredibly confusing for most people. Doubly so when the people who do the "state" marriage is performed at the same time as the "religion" marriage.

I agree though. If you want "tax/property benefits" you get "civil unioned". If you want God to sanction you, you get "married".

Just the other day I was thinking that New Gingrich could be the first candidate to get the endorsements of polyamarous and religious right. Strange bedfellows indeed!

Followed by the fact that the Mormon is the one with only one wife. I find that highly amusing.

We've got a guy who can hardly talk, a guy who has multiple wifes, a guy who wants to turn the country upside down; but we can't vote for the Romney guy becasue... Mormons are weird? I've been around these guys, they ain't weird. They aren't even

Followed by the fact that the Mormon is the one with only one wife. I find that highly amusing.

Ever since the late 1890s, the official, "revealed" position of the LDS church has been that polygamy is no longer required / sanctioned-- ever since Congress threatened to withhold statehood to Utah if they did not abandon the practice.

Given that I can live with multiple women, have sex with them, have children with them, and in all ways other than legal, I can be married to them. Yes, why not poly-marriage?

The real problem is that we have a secular property partnership that has been mixed and confused with a religious ceremony. It has been suggested that gay couples should be offered an marriage equivalent. A 'civil union'. That is half the correct answer that would be all wrong if implemented alone. The real answer is to just declare ALL existing marriages to be civil unions, and remove any legal standing to "marriage". Let people make the fiduciary responsibilities of 'civil union' to whoever they want, and let the churches worry about what a 'marriage is. Each denomination can decide for themselves what a marriage is. Anyone outside of the group has no more need or requirement to acknowledge the marriage than they do a declaration of BFFs.

Homosexuality is fashionable currently, polygamy is not. Microsoft doesn't care about rights, it cares about PR.

I see only two valid thresholds:* 1 man 1 woman (rationale: the only 1-on-1 configuration capable of having children)* any cohabiting group (rationale: the only non-discriminating one)

On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.

But, on the other hand, what about heterosexual marriages that don't want to have children? Should they be denied such benefits? And what about 80 years old newlyweds? Here the first variant falls apart.

Thus, I'd say that there is no other way than to allow any group. Promoting homosexualism is picking them over polygamy (which actually has biological reasons), Yet we can't have it the mormon/muslim way (1 man, 4 women) -- gender equality forces us to allow 4 women 1 man as well. But then, why not 2 men 2 women?

Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing. This would allow simplifying all child/adoption/marriage/etc rules: anyone can join, if you were underage when joining you are not allowed to ever have relations with someone who was a part of the group (no matter if you were born into or adopted); only adults can ever leave (except as a court order in cases of abuse or neglect). No restrictions on gender, number or anything whatsoever.

On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.

How about:

Being able to visit/make medical decisions for your spouse if they are hospitalized or incapacitated.Being able to adopt a child together in a way that gives both parents legal parental rights in relation to their child (everything from school permission slips to keeping the child if the spouse dies)Being considered a spouse in legal proceedings (spousal 5th amendment immunity, inheritance laws, etc.)Being able to marry a foreigner without fear they will be deported

And since when is an adopted child not the parents' kid? That's not only reprehensible, it's missing the whole point of encouraging marriages as child-rearing units. It's established that gay couples adopt kids with disabilities at a higher rate than straight couples, for example.

Furthermore, we don't question the 80-year old newlyweds, and merely shake our heads and sigh (as opposed to foaming at the mouth about 'threats to traditional values') at celebrity marriages measurable in hours.

We also have huge amounts of legal and social framework set up to accommodate 2-adult family units; enabling the gender bits to be flipped any which way doesn't actually change any of how things work. Opening up the system to accomodate polygamy would open huge cans of worms (an organized crime ring could all get married to each other, and be fully protected from someone turning states' evidence, for example).

Indeed. After an adoption is finalized, there is no legal difference between biological and adopted children, except that in some cases parents of an adopted child may be eligible for some specific forms of welfare.

Fortunately, California forbids social workers from discriminating between potential adoptive parents on the basis of sexual orientation. What I just don't understand is why people view the ability to marry as more important than the ability to adopt. Californians never had an initiative ballot

Taxes is a small small part of it. Marriage confers a host of other rights, like automatic next of kin. You get to say what happens to your lover's body, you get to visit them in the hospital when it is "family only," you get to make decisions for them when they are incapable. A big deal for a community that still be thrown out of the hospital by the hate-filled "in-laws."

On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.

1. Yes, I am after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. Why do you say a solo person deserves such benefits more than me?

2. Such a truth (actually, a fact among many) isn't uncomfortable to me at all. Now, mind you, there's much more to it than such benefits. The rest of your comment is getting towards that goal - that the government (specifically, the vote of 50% + 1 of a population) shouldn't have the ability to promote single mothers raising children, married couples without children or that cannot have children, divorced couples married with children from previous marriages, some sects of Christianity, etc., over other beliefs/people - such others like homosexuals with children or Christian sects who believe God loves everyone.

4. There are a whole lot of things in the government that discriminate homosexuals over heterosexuals. I won't list them all here, as you can just google it - a quick example is the right not testify against your spouse - but when you say "paying less taxes" you're quite missing the point - there shouldn't be any discrimination at all, period.

Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing.

You're onto the answer. However, by doing that, you're still making the mistake that the government shouldn't make - making a decision of who can or can't be involved. I hate the fact that people dismiss that interracial marriage was illegal in this country until sometime in the 1970's - that wasn't long ago, and most Americans find it so ridiculous that the government would say it's illegal for a white person and black person to get married that they dismiss it. Well, the problem was mitigated by changing the definition of marriage at that point - instead of the government removing itself from the definition in the first place.

The answer is to not let the government discriminate at all, nor to "define marriage" at all. It's not a states rights vs. federal thing at all - there shouldn't be any government (50%+1) that can make that choice. If there should be laws helping society procreate, then so be it - base it on people having children and not religious beliefs about what a marriage is, or enlightened beliefs about who can join such unions. Simply put, merit-based laws. Don't write anything about what a marriage is.

I'd always think a similar pragmatic approach would help with these god awful debates about the rich and taxes and jo

1. Yes, I am after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. Why do you say a solo person deserves such benefits more than me?

Ok, I probably misphrased it: s/deserve/need/.

A kid that has a parent and a step-parent is likely to require government handouts less than a kid who has but a solo parent. This is not a hard rule, of course.

When it comes to deserving, you are exactly equal -- raising a kid is raising a kid.

Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing.

You're onto the answer. However, by doing that, you're still making the mistake that the government shouldn't make - making a decision of who can or can't be involved.

I kind of fail to understand what you disagree with -- I claim that the only non-discriminating way is to allow anyone to bond with anyone else, no matter the gender, race or number of people in such a bond. You claim the government shouldn't get to choose, leaving that decision to the individuals who want to enter the union.

That is such utter horseshit. As if you had ANY way to read the mind of everyone in a poly relationship. Just like every other flavor of relationship, there are good poly arrangements and there are poor ones. It's not about partner count or gender; it's about being decent human beings and not a whole lot else. FYI, "decent" doesn't mean "heterosexual" or "monogamous."

Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering.

Thew sad part about Saudi arabia is the males all do religious studies and the females all do degrees in medicine and accounting. It so bad now that over 70% of the skilled work force is now female and they earn over 60% of the average families income. The male population in the middle east is living a religious none reality.

Some day we will have artificial sentient beings among us. And should they be capable of feeling, thinking, and motivating themselves as human beings are (which is the DEFINITION of an artificial sentience), I WILL support the rights of humans and AS or AS and AS to marry.

The key will be algorithms that implement emotional feedback that affects the very thoughts and actions of the AS, not the mere capability to mimic emotions by performing a "human" response to something that "should" trigger an emotiona

I agree that companies should look out for their employees but for issues as evenly split between left and right as this one, I wonder if they will deter as many potential employees as entice new ones. I think a more effective approach would be to improve remote locations so employees don't have to come to Washington to work for MS.

I agree that companies should look out for their employees but for issues as evenly split between left and right as this one, I wonder if they will deter as many potential employees as entice new ones.

Evenly split? You assume that educated straight males are as homophobic as uneducated straight males. And if MS can deter the latter, all the better for their HR department.

As much as I personally love bashing MS, the reality is that they've had this position for quite a while now. For instance they gave $100k to support Ref 71 which if passed would allow the everything but marriage bill to be enacted. And IIRC that was hardly the first time they supported the general cause of equality for sexual minorities either.

Sorry, Microsoft was well ahead of Google when it comes to gay rights (like giving insurance and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners in 1993 before Google was founded). Read about GLEAM (Gay and Lesbian Employees at Microsoft) [wikipedia.org] to get a concise summary of gay support by Microsoft.

Cynicism like yours breeds apathy, which eases the path for the corrupt and self-interested. Simultaneously, you are letting yourself off the hook in terms of your responsibilities towards the general good.

Obviously some of us have read a lot more history than you have. Politicians whether appointed, or elected have always worked for the people. Simply not in the way you expect, and that's the way it has been throughout history. Whether it was the front-town mayor, or magistrate. Or the regional crown. The problem that exists now, is that cronyism is far too profitable and thus is corrupting politics to the point where politicians are no longer working for the people.

Social Reform Issues tend to be counter democratic in nature.When there is a minority group that needs more protection, you need a powerful group to push these changes, as the majority sees the plight of the minority as not effecting them or worse their plight is in the majority self interest.But before you go So you think Social Reform is Anti-American, you need to remember the United States is a Democratic Republic, We are not a pure democracy, We elect Representative to make the decisions for us, and if we get good ones we get someone(s) willing to risk political backlash to do the right thing as they can see a bigger picture of the issue.

We need companies, they make a lot of these tough decisions a little more easier because they can break down such decisions into dollars and cents.

Um, you do realize that the a few state politicians have been bringing this up every session for at least a decade, right? It's just that at this point the only right under state law that hasn't been granted is the right to civil marriage, at this point the best they can do is civil unions.

MS does a lot of shady things, but in this case they're just supporting equality and giving some cover to any GOP pols that might be on the fence; allowing them to claim to be supporting the needs of businesses.

No love for the poor people though as Microsoft rolls out the Avoid The Ghetto App [huffingtonpost.com]! Now it'll be interesting to see what ruffles more feathers... supporting gay marriage or the "racist" avoid the ghetto app:)

OMG a corporation doing something for the public good {besides selling us widgets we need}. It's sad, but this. is. news. It really shouldn't be. This is how they should normally act. They should all use their influence to make the world better, not worse.

Microsoft has, for a very long time, been supportive of LGBT folks. Microsoft's benefits have, for a very long time, fully covered domestic partners at the same level as spouses. Microsoft supports GLEAM -- Gays and Lesbians At Microsoft -- and openly supports GLEAM marching in Seattle's gay pride parades.

And it isn't just some corporate PR sham. I've worked at Microsoft since 1997, and have worked with almost a dozen gay/lesbian folks, who were out and happy at work.

They want to legalize it so that in the Windows 8 EULA they can legally marry anyone, and if you install another OS it'll be considered cheating and they can divorce you and take half your stuff!
It's a new form of vendor lock-in.

Sounds like you want to outlaw normal marriage too, then. Oh wait. Marriage doesn't stop people from making you. You answered his question, but then threw in a red herring that's irrelevant to any argument about marriage. BTW, your'e wrong about the history of the word too. You're basically ignorant all around. It was just 1959 that a white man had to go to the supreme court to not be charged for marrying a black woman. You're ignorance is the exact same ignorance. It's pathetic. You harken back to the old days that never were. And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution? I mean, Catholicism destroyed whole cultures' worth of history in South America. And the act of marriage predates recorded history anyway. How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago? And how the fuck is that relevant today?

So the whole kerfuffle boils down to "we don't want gays to sign a piece of paper".

no, it's that some folks see marriage as a sacred (as in religious) vow between a man and a woman, and they think their holy doctrine tells them that homosexuality is wrong.

of course i don't agree, but you should at least understand the viewpoint. if you get into a discussion with someone and you immediately boil it down to signing a piece of paper, or not, you aren't going to change any minds or make anyone think.

No, it's about equal-status.In the UK, we have "gay marriage" in all but name; civil partnerships. It confers all the (very limited) financial benefits of marriage, but is only for "teh gayz".

Our tax-code is pretty non-involved when it comes to marriage. If you'e living with someone as a partner, that's the limit - doesn't matter if you're married, civil-unioned, or anything.

Yet, oddly (if you follow the "financial" argument), the gay community is still pushing for equal-marriage. Here in Scotland we're having a big fight over it, with the Catholic Church (amongst others) arguing it's wrong, and the equal-rights groups saying it's about damned time, and the normal, rational people being somewhere in the middle, but broadly in favour of it (since it's not about money, and just about equality, most people come down on the side of equality, not sky-wizrd voodoo).It's all about being treated equally, as a fair and equal member of society. I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all - you can make a permanent union (and break them with due solemnity) but what you call it is entirely up to you and your own personal Sky Wizard. No state involvement at all in that side of things.Of course, this would be painted as the deliberate destruction of marriage (even though, actually, we'd be going back to an age-old situation where marriage is a matter for the church, nothing to do with the state at all) to please the evil homosexual liberal satanists or whatever.TL:DR summary: dont expect reason from irrational people like the religious right. It'll just make your head hurt.

Well, societal norms and expectations do have *some* input into how the law should run in these situations. By and large (at least, here in Scotland), polygamy & polyandry are quite rare - and we don't ban people from living together/having multi-person sexual relationships. A civil union is a recognition by the state that 90% or so of the nation will at some point form a mostly-monogomous relationship with a single other person, often for the purpose (although not explicitly or exclusively) of raisin

Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots.

...

And I will even go for tolerance, but only up to a point. However what is being demanded isn't tolerance but acceptance.

Because you're a bigot, you are unable to see why this is a problem. You're never going to understand it, so you might as well not bother trying. It would be like explaining color to a blind man.

What is being demanded is the same rights as anyone else has - the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. You don't have to like it, and the only acceptance that is required is that they have the same rights as you do.

Wrong. Once you legally redefine the word marriage all sorts of follow on side effects begin. Tolerance ends and acceptance on pain of government begins. Catholic Church doesn't believe it is right? Tough. Won't matter once the law changes, they will give em a full church wedding and place a child in their care through their adoption agency or the Justice Dept cornholes em.

No. No. No. No. How many times must this stupid argument be thrown around?

Look. Right now, the Catholic Church does not allow a marriage to occur if one of the partners is divorced. Similarly, Jewish synagogues will not marry a Jew to a non-Jew. However, both of these marriages are allowed by law. In your little world, where the legal requirement is forced upon the religious institutions, how is this possible? The DOJ should've forced these types of marriages on these institutions a long, long, long time ago.

But they didn't. Why? Because what the law allows is never, and has never been, forced upon religious institutions. If the law allows same-sex marriage, many churches will continue to disallow it, and the law will do nothing about that. Just like it always has.

Legalizing same sex marriage has absolutely zero impact on anyone other than adult homosexuals who choose to marry their same-sex partner. It will not impact you (assuming you're heterosexual), your church, your own marriage, or anything or anyone else. And for the record, I'm writing this from a country that already allows same-sex marriage, so I'm not just speculating here, I'm describing reality.

The problem is that the government had no business getting into the marriage business in the first place. It used to be a religious institution, until some kings decided that they didn't like the church having all that power and decided to stick their noses into it. You see, not maintaining a good separation of church and state cuts TWO ways. Not only do you have the religions meddling in government matters which should be none of their concern, but you also have the government meddling in religious areas where *it* has no business being either.

If marriage hadn't become a secular state institution, we wouldn't *need* to have this debate.

The problem is that the government had no business getting into the marriage business in the first place. It used to be a religious institution, until some kings decided that they didn't like the church having all that power and decided to stick their noses into it.

While its hard to clearly separate religious and government institutions that existed before the adoption of the norm of church/state separation in the host society (which really begins in the modern era), marriage historically was largely governed principal by general, rather than any special ecclesiastic, law even in the Christian West through the early part of the Middle Ages, was performed under local customs that often predated the local adoption of Christianity, and didn't involve the clergy at all; during the Middle Ages, the Church became involved, first by having clergy present as witnesses (though still, for some time, prohibiting marriage inside the sanctuary of a church), and later -- as the Church acquired a role as a kind of "international government" in Europe, through prescribed rites and an active regulatory role.

If marriage hadn't become a secular state institution, we wouldn't *need* to have this debate.

It is more defensible to reverse this to say "if the Church hadn't become a quasi-governmental entity and expanded its area of regulation into marriage and other traditional areas of government control, we wouldn't need to have this debate."

The idea that marriage was an institution of the church before it was an institution of government governing the distribution of property is nearly as historically inaccurate as the idea that it is some kind of universal truth that marriage has (prior to recent years) historically always been between one genetic male and one genetic female.

>>We are supposed to be believers in evolution, right? If you don't like my term of 'defect' for someone who takes themselves out of the gene pool please supply a better term.
Many species have non-reproductive members that not only endure but are actually essential to the communities / species / gene pool that they are in. I suspect you might need less belief in evolution and more discernment into the subtleties of how it works in practice over large volumes of individuals and time. In a state of

Are you sure that evolution is really supposed to work like that? It sounds rather... counter-intuitive.

Yup.

It's called the "Gay Uncle" hypothesis. In short, each subsequent male child the mother births has a 7% (if I recall correctly) increased chance of being gay. The idea is that the older male siblings reproduce to pass on the family's genes while the gay offspring contribute by helping out the extended family and ensuring the children are taken care of and survive to pass on their family's genes.

Like all evolutionary psychology theories, take it with a huge grain of salt. But the notion that homos

Hell, I only TOLERATE progressives, I certainly don't ACCEPT em and since 99% of gays are also progs........ you guys made my shitlist long before my gaydar went off.

I guess it was really hard for you to justify automatically hating homosexuals right up until the point that you could say "99% of gays are also progs." Then I bet it was really easy for you to say you hate them not because they're gay but because of their political alignment (that you forced upon them).

Well done. Well done. Say, have you ever considered that they're also human beings with different needs than you? That they just want to be recognized the same way you are by your government that supposedly espouses equal rights?

Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.

Take all your political bullshit and leave. This is about the rights of human beings. Not "being progressive" or "saying 2+2=5" but about respecting your fellow citizens the same fucking way they respect you.

1. Organisms aren't designed, they evolve.2. We're hardly the only species that has sex purely for pleasure. By your logic, anal and oral sex among heterosexuals, or sex between heterosexuals where one or both members cannot reproduce is wrong.3. In a secular country, no church has any business saying who can or cannot enter a civil union. That is, after all, what a civil union is about. Churches are free to decide who can get married in their venue, but as others have pointed out, none of that counts. The

As a gay man, I concur that homosexuality isn't the majority result in the human species. But neither is left-handedness. Everyone has something that isn't normal, everyone. It could be as small as a cell that grows abnormally in a small organ somewhere in your body.

And just because you don't like gays, doesn't mean everyone doesn't like them.

Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words

Yeah, and let's start with taking back the word "gay" since it has no synonym. Nowadays if you say you're having a gay day, people think you're completely incensed over this or that injustice towards your lifestyle demographic. It's supposed to mean a carefree happiness, which is just about the exact opposite.

So because I have some condition which would lead to me being less fit for purpose for breeding and passing on my genes; sterility, bad eyesight, cerebral palsey, whatever, I should be tolerated at best and not allowed to have a family because I am DEFECTIVE and some kind of ABERRATION against $DEITY/DARWIN?

If, as you say, civil unions are just as good as marriage, then why are you so adamant in insisting that homosexuals can have one but not the other?

Why don't we just abolish one completely and make the other available to both straight and gay couples? That sure would make things simple. And fair.

I am sorry that you find homosexual marriage threatening. But that doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are real people, who really fall in love, and really want all the legal/social benefits that marriage pr

How do we the people change things so that we, not corporations, rule the country?

Federalize the law of corporations, and make it a breach of fiduciary duty for the managers and directors to spend money on any task not directly related to the scope of their business. You'll have to play with the language a few times to tell the Supreme Court you mean it, but that would work.

It's not a double standard. Corporations + something bad = bad. Corporations + something good = good. "Something" is often "politics", and that something is often "bad". In this case, it is not. You've attempted to reduce the "Corporations + bad politics" half of the equation to "corporations + politics". I'm pretty sure if corporations only did good things, 99% of peoples' complaints would go away. Corporations were originally required to serve the public interest, or their charter would automatically diss

And it is a sad state of affairs when only corporate pressure can bring the government to protect freedoms as basic and important as marriage.

Corporations should not dominate politics. This doesn't change the fact that sometimes some corporate interests actually align with the greater good of the people. This temporary alliance in no way changes the fact that corporations should not be treated as people.